Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Belize]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/polit...nse/index.html

Just about what you'd expect from Trump's lawyers...

So their argument boils down to "Blackmailing foreign countries is totes cool" and "Well, we think the President (as long as he's on our political side) should be immune to everything."

What a new, and radical take from them. We haven't heard this in the past, at all.

[cubby]

So their argument boils down to "Blackmailing foreign countries is totes cool" and "Well, we think the President (as long as he's on our political side) should be immune to everything."

What a new, and radical take from them. We haven't heard this in the past, at all.

Their argument borders on insanity. And Trump's "legal" team opened their 115 page discourse on idiocy with "Impeachment is not Constitutional". I understand it got worse from there.

[Belize]

Their argument borders on insanity. And Trump's "legal" team opened their 115 page discourse on idiocy with "Impeachment is not Constitutional". I understand it got worse from there.

I'm scrolling through a couple of pages, and it's mostly insults.

Like, there isn't a whole lot of substantiation to the claims that the Impeachment is invalid, other than "Democrats are big meanies "

[cubby]

I'm scrolling through a couple of pages, and it's mostly insults.

Like, there isn't a whole lot of substantiation to the claims that the Impeachment is invalid, other than "Democrats are big meanies "

I read a brief summary by former a Nixon defender and he said it was so substandard legally speaking he thinks Trump dictated portions of it.

And the fact that substance is devoid in their brief is of significant note.

I'm still utterly baffled that the GOP is continuing to back this horse. It would be a major black mark, and they'd lose the White House, but at the same time, they would rid of a man so stupid he calls a Constitutional process "constitutionally invalid".

[Belize]

I read a brief summary by former a Nixon defender and he said it was so substandard legally speaking he thinks Trump dictated portions of it.

And the fact that substance is devoid in their brief is of significant note.

I'm still utterly baffled that the GOP is continuing to back this horse. It would be a major black mark, and they'd lose the White House, but at the same time, they would rid of a man so stupid he calls a Constitutional process "constitutionally invalid".

Realistically speaking, it's not like they really need to put in any effort in the defense, when the juror is in cahoots with the defense to acquit ASAP.

[pathora44]

I'm scrolling through a couple of pages, and it's mostly insults.

Like, there isn't a whole lot of substantiation to the claims that the Impeachment is invalid, other than "Democrats are big meanies "

I would hope Chief Justice Roberts would audibly groan, rub his head, and then have Trump's entire legal team put before the BAR association to see if they are fit to be lawyers with how stupid their discourse seems to be.

[eschatological]

Roberts is kind of the unknown in all this. Theoretically, he's in charge of this trial. And obvious, as a SC Justice, no one really interviews him or has an in-depth read on what he's thinking, or how he's going to run this trial.

Rehnquist kind of served as just a rubber stamp on the process during the Clinton impeachment. I wonder if Roberts will do the same.


It's kind of sad that a conservative, Bush-appointed Justice is our only hope for some reasonableness in this trial, besides four phantom Republican Senators who might vote for witnesses.

[cubby]

Realistically speaking, it's not like they really need to put in any effort in the defense, when the juror is in cahoots with the defense to acquit ASAP.

Good point. I mean, Trump is calling for an acquittal before the Senators even hear the evidence, much less witnesses. And McConnell openly admits to working directly with the White House in arranging the Trial rules.

[Shadowferal]

Poll: 51 percent of Americans say Senate should convict and remove Trump

This was after the Parnas revelation.

[Orbitus]

It's time to grow up

and separate feelings.

I have, and all the evidence points to Trump being fucking guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

You're going to be happy to know that the Senate GOP looked into the Biden matter back in 2016-2017 and they found no evidence of wrong doing by Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. I hope this clears up the matter. Let us know if you have any other questions - we're always happy to help.

Especially since at least 3 Republican senators signed onto what Biden did. Including Trump humping moron Ron Johnson from Wisconsin.

[Shadowferal]

So much for Moscow Mitch wanting to be like Clinton's Impeachment...he's already strayed far from that.

[cubby]

So much for Moscow Mitch wanting to be like Clinton's Impeachment...he's already strayed far from that.

Far and moving farther away. Looks like they want this wrapped up before the SOTU address. I hope there is a way the Democrats can delay it.

[Benggaul]

Far and moving farther away. Looks like they want this wrapped up before the SOTU address. I hope there is a way the Democrats can delay it.

Since it's going to be a farce anyway, I don't particularly care if it's done before the SOTU. It won't make a difference either way. Trump speaking live is going to have the same impact it always has: His supporters will eat it up and everyone with functioning brain cells will see a mentally-diseased old man sniffing and slurring his way through petty insult after petty insult while making poor attempts at laying claim to other people's achievements.

[Blur4stuff]

We all knew it was going to be as rigged as possible in the senate. They announced that beforehand.

The benefit is that the american people can now see how rigged it is. You don't put in this kind of effort for someone that's innocent. It's going to damage Trump either way and help take down some senators as well.

[Belize]

McConnell is a fuck

[Masark]

Far and moving farther away. Looks like they want this wrapped up before the SOTU address. I hope there is a way the Democrats can delay it.

[Darththeo]

Since it's going to be a farce anyway, I don't particularly care if it's done before the SOTU. It won't make a difference either way. Trump speaking live is going to have the same impact it always has: His supporters will eat it up and everyone with functioning brain cells will see a mentally-diseased old man sniffing and slurring his way through petty insult after petty insult while making poor attempts at laying claim to other people's achievements.

I have asked Trump supporters a policy or something he has done and what affect it has had ... a lot of the patterns they point to started under Obama. For example, a lot of people credit the low unemployment rate to him despite it dropping consistently since Obama and literally nothing he did affected it.

Also, I have seen Trump supporters on the Ukraine phone call point blank tell me to read the "transcript" (which there isn't a word for word transcript) and it proves that Trump didn't ask for a favor, but the official document approved for release by Trump literally has him asking for a favor.

What is annoying is so many people believe Trump is a political outsider because he never held an office before, this is just stupid. You can run major businesses without being involved in politics on some level. I didn't like Sanders, Hillary or Trump because they all don't actually care about fixing problems, they care about appealing to their base and screw everyone else.

[Gestopft]

We all knew it was going to be as rigged as possible in the senate. They announced that beforehand.

The benefit is that the american people can now see how rigged it is. You don't put in this kind of effort for someone that's innocent. It's going to damage Trump either way and help take down some senators as well.

It's going to be harder for Trump to go through 2020 saying "I was found innocent" when the Democrats can (correctly) point out the complicity of the Republicans. Especially if they don't actually allow any witnesses.

That's the bind Republicans are in. It's harder for Trump to claim vindication when the trial is so obviously rigged from the start, but actually allowing evidence and testimony makes it harder for them not to convict someone so obviously guilty.

[Gestopft]

Not any harder than any of the other lies he tells that his followers eat up. If the Dems don’t get the turnout they need it’ll be another 4 years of a mentally degrading man child.

Yes I agree completely. But the people who will believe him no matter what aren't who we're after.

[Eviscero]

It's going to be harder for Trump to go through 2020 saying "I was found innocent" when the Democrats can (correctly) point out the complicity of the Republicans. Especially if they don't actually allow any witnesses.

That's the bind Republicans are in. It's harder for Trump to claim vindication when the trial is so obviously rigged from the start, but actually allowing evidence and testimony makes it harder for them not to convict someone so obviously guilty.

I wonder though. It seems to me it is extremely easy for the repubs to simply say they don't think the conduct is impeachable and acquit him even if they believe all the evidence that already exists, even if they bring in witnesses. It seems unlikely that some new revelation will be made, it's just going to be more witnesses confirming what we already know. So its not clear to me why they're so resistant to witnesses which makes them look complicit in a cover up. Just let the witnesses come, get your moronic hunter Biden deposition to rile up your base, and acquit on that pathetic weak bullshit argument that "abuse of power" isn't impeachable. Preventing witnesses is more likely to hurt Senate Republicans in 2020 while the outcome for the president will be the same.